Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted and sentenced for sexual assault. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the district court did not err by admitting into evidence a recored interview with the victim in violation of Defendant's confrontation rights or in contravention of Mont. R. Evid. 613(b); (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction under the criteria set forth in State v. Yuhas; (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial; and (4) Defendant's argument that his attorney provided ineffective assistance at trial should be raised in a petition for postconviction relief. View "State v. Baker" on Justia Law

Defendant brought her seven-week-old son, John Doe, to a medical center for injuries. A jury later convicted Defendant of assault on a minor and aggravated assault. The district court ordered a change in parenting arrangements for John Doe as part of the criminal sentence despite pending dependency and neglect proceedings. As part of Defendant's sentence, the district court ordered Defendant to pay fees, costs, and surcharges without recording findings regarding Defendant's financial situation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Defendant had regained custody of John Doe through the civil proceeding, her claim regarding the imposition of a condition concerning the temporary custody of John Doe was moot; however, the statement in the court's written judgment that the father should be presumed to have custody of John Doe should not have been included in the criminal sentence; and (2) the district court acted within its discretion in imposing fees. View "State v. MacDonald" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault, burglary, criminal endangerment, and assault on a peace officer, all felonies. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the Supreme Court should exercise plain error review of his argument that the convictions for aggravated assault and criminal endangerment violated statutory and constitutional double jeopardy protections. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) sufficient evidence supported the aggravated assault conviction; (2) sufficient evidence supported the burglary conviction; and (3) charging both crimes of criminal endangerment and aggravated assault was not plain error under the facts of this case since different victims were involved. View "State v. Torres" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of assault on a peace officer, a felony, for biting a detention officer on the arm. Defendant appealed, arguing that the prosecutor's comments during closing argument constituted misconduct and warranted reversal of her conviction under plain error review. Defendant argued that the prosecutor repeatedly made direct comments about the reliability of the witnesses, and thus the prosecutor vouched for the witnesses and attempted to interject his personal opinion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that when viewed in the context of the entire argument, the challenged comments made in closing argument did not raise the specter of prosecutorial misconduct necessitating the exercise of plain error review to protect fundamental fairness of this proceeding. View "State v. McDonald" on Justia Law

After Employee failed to ask a shopper for a loyalty card per Employer's policy, Employee was fired. Employee brought a wrongful discharge claim against Employer under Montana's Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act (WDEA). Employee accepted Employer's offer to arbitrate the dispute because she said Mont. Code Ann. 39-915 would force her to pay Employer's attorney fees if she declined the offer and later lost at trial. Employee then successfully moved to amend her complaint to add destruction of evidence and declaratory judgment claims, alleging, inter alia, that section 39-2-915 was unconstitutional. The district court subsequently dismissed Employee's amended complaint, concluding that it had lost jurisdiction over Employee's claim once she accepted the offer to arbitrate. The court also ruled that 39-2-915 was constitutional. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the dismissal of Employee's amended complaint, as the court lost its ability to consider Employee's claim once she agreed to arbitration; and (2) set aside the district court's determination of Employee's constitutional claim, as the court lost its authority to act further once Employee agreed to arbitrate. View "Ensey v. Mini Mart, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to the aggravated assault of his wife (Wife). As part of his sentence, the district court ordered Defendant to pay $44,112 in restitution, including $19,866 for Wife's medical expenses arising from her suicide attempt two and a half months after Defendant's assault. Defendant appealed the portion of his sentence involving the restitution for Wife's suicide attempt. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order of restitution, holding (1) the district court did not err in determining that Wife's suicide attempt was "a result of" Defendant's criminal conduct; and (2) substantial evidence in the record supported the restitution obligation. View "State v. Jent" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of negligent homicide and criminal endangerment. Prior to trial, Defendant filed a motion in limine requesting that five photos of the victim's body be excluded from evidence at trial. Defendant argued that the photos were highly prejudicial in that they depicted death, and the photos had no probative value. The district court granted Defendant's request as to one photo but allowed the State to use the remaining photos. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it admitted the photos of the victim into evidence where the court correctly balanced the probative value of the photos against their prejudicial effect. View "State v. Buslayev" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the offense of partner of family member assault (PFMA), a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and remanded for correction of the written judgment, holding (1) Defendant's attorney did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to the mental state instructions given at trial, as the district court properly instructed the jury in the applicable law on the mental state for the PFMA offense; and (2) an error in the district court's written judgment imposing terms and conditions of parole or conditional release required that the written judgment be amended. Remanded. View "State v. Birthmark" on Justia Law

Appellant rented second-floor office space and owned one of the upper-floor residential units in the Baxter Hotel. In 2008, the Baxter Homeowners Association (BHA) restricted access to the hotel's elevator by only permitting unit owners and their tenants to access the elevator via swipe key cards. After Appellant filed a complaint with the Montana Human Rights Bureau (Bureau), the BHA board installed a time clock system that would keep the elevator unlocked during business hours and locked at night. Appellant subsequently moved his law office out of the building. Ultimately, a hearing officer with the Bureau concluded that BHA violated Mont. Code Ann. 49-2-304(1)(a) when it failed to provide a reasonable alteration to the elevator to permit disabled persons to have unfettered access to the second floor business offices in the hotel during business hours, awarded $6,000 in damages to Appellant, and denied both parties' requests for attorneys' fees. The Human Rights Commission affirmed. The district court reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant did not possess proper standing to file a complaint of discrimination on behalf of his unidentified and potential clients. View "Baxter Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Angel" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of accountability for deliberate homicide, robbery, tampering with physical evidence, and burglary. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made during a custodial interrogation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant did not invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent when he said "I don't really have anything to talk about" because he did not articulate a desire to remain silent sufficiently clearly that a reasonable officer in the circumstances would have understood Defendant's statements to be an invocation of his Miranda right to remain silent as required by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Berghuis v. Thompkins; and (2) the district court's finding that Defendant's Miranda waiver and subsequent statements to the police were voluntary was supported by substantial credible evidence, and its conclusions of law were correct. View "State v. Nixon" on Justia Law